User talk:31dot
For older conversations, see the pre-admin archive, the 2009 archive, the 2010 archive, 2011 archive, 2012 archive, and the 2013 archive. If you are responding to a post I left on your talk page, please reply there, to keep the discussion in one location. User Report Two users have been Vandalizing the main page. Probably the same person. KatherinaN34 and OpheliaGlade. --BorgKnight (talk) 03:25, January 1, 2014 (UTC) Anon user After making several additions on an "edit" page I could not find a SAVE/PRINT/or publish button anywhere so I clicked "need help editing?" and all my additions to the STAR TREK notes about me on the TOS COURTMARTIAL episode #15 went up in smoke. Winston de Lugo (Timothy in COURTMARTIAL) I hope U have ways of finding it, I can't. - :If you went to a different screen from the edit screen without saving, anything you did is gone. The Save button should be located to the right of the posting area (if you are using the default skin). 31dot (talk) 01:26, January 2, 2014 (UTC) Voth Ship STO I don't know why you undid the edit in the Voth city ship ship article as there are many articles of ships where in the Apocrypha section there has mention of their appearances in other non canon sources such as video games, books, comics etc. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:03, January 6, 2014 (UTC) Also just to say that mention of their appearance in the game, as well as the appearance of their City Ship is already in the Apocrypha section of the Voth article anyway. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:08, January 6, 2014 (UTC) :STO is not an ordinary non-canon source; it purports to be a recreation of the entire Star Trek universe. We generally only have Apocrypha information from it when something significant is revealed in STO (such as the death of a character, major change in occupation, destruction of a known ship, etc.) If we did not do this, virtually every article here would have a "This was in STO" in it. We aren't the STO wiki(which we have a link to on the main page). Please see Forum:STO References for more information. In all truthfulness that should be the case with any non-canon source(only revealing major information), though one-time appearances in a non-canon product are OK depending on how it is written. 31dot (talk) 11:15, January 6, 2014 (UTC) :In the case of the Voth page, more than their appearance is mentioned, such as their attempts to obtain Omega particles. A larger ship than their ship seen in Voyager is just game-specific information and reveals nothing about it. 31dot (talk) 11:17, January 6, 2014 (UTC) Ah I see now. Ya that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying that. --BorgKnight (talk) 11:23, January 6, 2014 (UTC) formal complaint against you By removing my comment from a talk page, you violated the rules of this wiki. I will be finding a senior admin and filing a complaint against you. 11:41, January 28, 2014 (UTC) :If you will look carefully, I did not remove it, but moved it out of an old discussion into a new one at the bottom of the page. 31dot (talk) 11:42, January 28, 2014 (UTC) Reconfirmations If you've had the time to digest this some more, further feedback would be appreciated. - 17:16, February 15, 2014 (UTC) Removal of Bajoran and Regalian phaser rifles from type 3 phaser User Pseudohuman removed this from the page: Bajoran phaser rifles were used by the Bajoran Militia, based on the design of their own hand phasers. ( ) Regalian phaser rifles were less powerful than their Starfleet counterparts. ( ) This should be put back on the page. The page is about phaser rifles (Bajoran, Regalian and Federation.) This has been on the page for years. Should this be put back or not?.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 13:38, February 20, 2014 (UTC) The page phaser has this on it too, but it is still on the page.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 13:45, February 20, 2014 (UTC) The Kelvin's Blue Bolts Further discussion on that topic would be pointless: they want the pulses to be torpedoes. I have already canon-referenced my claims otherwise, and my statements have been flatly ignored. (and an attempt was made to say that I was using the "sophistication" of the effect as evidence, when I was using the function.) The weapons on the Kelvin act like exactly disruptor fire. What is the idea with calling this 23rd century weapon a photon torpedo? I can't find any logic in it at all. :All I know is that there was no consensus or agreement to the change; you shouldn't make a disputed change just because you think you are right, as that just causes edit wars. 31dot (talk) 22:25, March 7, 2014 (UTC) USS Magellan Why did you remove content I placed on that page? I did the research and found what I had edited to correspond with another source. (Roddy229 (talk) 02:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 02:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)) :The USS Magellan needs to be protected now. Can you do that, thanks.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 02:54, March 28, 2014 (UTC) And who made you an administrator TyphyssJediVader? You have no right to keep messing with my work (Roddy229 (talk) 02:58, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 02:58, March 28, 2014 (UTC)) :Its TyphussJediVader not TyphyssJediVader.--TyphussJediVader (talk) 03:00, March 28, 2014 (UTC) Irrelevant. You still have no right to change the work I made. I'm a contributor just like you. (Roddy229 (talk) 03:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC)) If you actually do your homework and look at the sources, the information I edited is accurate. (Roddy229 (talk) 03:08, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:08, March 28, 2014 (UTC)) ::Explain yourselves, in detail. Where does this information come from, and why did either of you think it was a good idea to keep going back and forth on this instead of using the talk page? No one here is above explain their edits on a talk page. - 03:24, March 28, 2014 (UTC) Archduk3, the sources on said page, and several online including three pages cited from Google confirmed accuracy of what I put. I'd appreciate it being corrected (Roddy229 (talk) 03:29, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:29, March 28, 2014 (UTC)) :Ex astris scientia, and published manuals that were authorized by paramount for starters, were two of the sources I used to ensure accuracy. (Roddy229 (talk) 03:32, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:32, March 28, 2014 (UTC)) ::See MA:CANON and MA:RESOURCE. None of what you added was cited, and you may notice after reading the policies that Google, fan websites, and licensed material are not acceptable in-universe sources. - 03:35, March 28, 2014 (UTC) Is that so? Then why would such content be ddisplayed on the page? Seems like this wiki has evolved into a one sided discussion where the average person has no right to put their two cents into it. I'll be speaking with people above you about this matter (Roddy229 (talk) 03:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 03:39, March 28, 2014 (UTC)) :Good luck with that. Why do you sign your name twice? If you feel there are similar materials, please suggest their removal. --31dot (talk) 03:44, March 28, 2014 (UTC) I'll admit, I'm not the best at using some of the HTML stuff here. But just like you, and everyone else within this group, I have a right to defend my position. DS9 episode sacrifice of angels. Sisko orders the Magellan and Venture to protect the Defiant, both ships engaged a Galor class to clear the way for the Defiant's run past the dominion line. The Venture is the only one seen docked at DS9 after the fight is over. Roddy229 (talk) 04:02, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 04:02, March 28, 2014 (UTC) I can see trying to be civil about it won't work with you guys Roddy229 (talk) 05:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC)Roddy229Roddy229 (talk) 05:01, March 28, 2014 (UTC) :Signing posts should be done by typing ~~~~ at the end or by clicking the Signature button located above where you type your post. You don't need to type your name or have more than four tildes(~). :I'm not sure who isn't being civil to you. Where was the ship identified as the Venture? I realize it was reused stock footage of the Venture from but the ship was not labeled in either episode(it was named in dialog in TWOTW}. A lot happened in Sacrifice of Angels between where the Venture was mentioned and the end where the stock footage was used, and many Galaxy-class ships were seen in that episode without specific identification. :Regardless, we need direct, specific evidence of your position stated in the episode or even by Trek staff who worked on the episode, not fan website analysis. Information from a novel could be put as Apocrypha information, but not in-universe information. I urge you to review the above-linked policies as Archduk suggested. And please stop complaining about your "rights" being violated. You have no more "rights" than anyone else; all edits here are determined by consensus of the community, not just by the person who made them. 31dot (talk) 11:45, March 28, 2014 (UTC) help requested Moved to User talk:FossilLord. 31dot (talk) 03:03, April 4, 2014 (UTC)